Thu May 31, 2012, 03:07 PM
Purveyor (29,876 posts)
House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban
Source: Associated Press
(05-31) 11:33 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- House Republicans lost an attempt to pass legislation making it a federal crime to carry out gender-based abortions. In a campaign year when Democrats are accusing Republicans of waging a war against women, Republicans sought to portray the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act as a women's rights issue. But the legislation required a two-thirds majority for passage, because of procedural rules, and had no future in the Democratic Senate. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/30/national/w223051D82.DTL
|
16 replies, 4189 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Purveyor | May 2012 | OP |
PeaceNikki | May 2012 | #1 | |
onehandle | May 2012 | #2 | |
Enrique | May 2012 | #3 | |
sinkingfeeling | May 2012 | #6 | |
MicaelS | May 2012 | #4 | |
Myrina | May 2012 | #7 | |
freshwest | May 2012 | #8 | |
razorman | May 2012 | #11 | |
Iliyah | May 2012 | #5 | |
malthaussen | May 2012 | #9 | |
Thor_MN | Jun 2012 | #15 | |
gratuitous | Jun 2012 | #16 | |
rocktivity | May 2012 | #10 | |
rebecca_herman | May 2012 | #12 | |
JustABozoOnThisBus | Jun 2012 | #13 | |
cstanleytech | Jun 2012 | #14 |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:09 PM
PeaceNikki (27,985 posts)
1. Good. Stupid anti-choice, women-hating, bullshit.
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:14 PM
onehandle (51,122 posts)
2. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! nt
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:17 PM
Enrique (27,461 posts)
3. part of the "Luntz package"
http://go.bloomberg.com/political-economy/2012-05-30/hoyer-abortion-bill-a-luntz-package-without-substance/
Tomorrow’s planned House vote on legislation that would impose penalties for performing abortions for the purpose of gender selection is part of a “totally political” Republican agenda planned for the coming weeks, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland told reporters. The Maryland Democrat called the list of planned votes released by Majority Leader Eric Cantor “a Frank Luntz package of rhetoric without substance” — referring to the Republican consultant known for using focus groups to determine political language used in campaigns. |
Response to Enrique (Reply #3)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:22 PM
sinkingfeeling (48,177 posts)
6. Love Rep. Hoyer's definition of the agenda!
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:18 PM
MicaelS (8,739 posts)
4. If Republicans could PROVE Homosexuality had a specfic genetic marker
And there was an amniocentesis based test for said marker, they would be ENCOURAGING women to have the test and abort each and every homosexual fetus.
I know this for a fact, because I have talked to several Republicans that have said exactly this. |
Response to MicaelS (Reply #4)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:25 PM
Myrina (12,296 posts)
7. ... or better yet ...
... since in I'm sure more than a few cases, it's the sperm that passes on/activates genetic makeup (especially gender) in a fetus, let's just sterilize all men and be done with the need for abortions entirely.
Works for me. |
Response to Myrina (Reply #7)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:36 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
8. Okay, you naughty thing! I've argued this to stop abortions and gotten...
![]() 'Works for me.' ![]() |
Response to MicaelS (Reply #4)
Thu May 31, 2012, 04:41 PM
razorman (1,644 posts)
11. It might happen some day. Science continually advances. If a genetic connection
to homosexuality is ever proved, it will dramatically change the political landscape of the issue. Who knows?
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:22 PM
Iliyah (25,111 posts)
5. Where are the effing jobs
huh - GOPPERS????
We are not paying you to do stupid shit. And if there is a specific gene, wouldn't just blow their argument away because they have always said its a choice or environmental. Goppers are jerks! |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 03:40 PM
malthaussen (16,111 posts)
9. But if the bill didn't pass
Does that not mean some Republicans jumped ship? That might actually be important -- they so often are in lockstep with the Program.
-- Mal |
Response to malthaussen (Reply #9)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 08:21 AM
Thor_MN (11,843 posts)
15. the legislation required a two-thirds majority for passage, because of procedural rules
Response to malthaussen (Reply #9)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 08:58 AM
gratuitous (81,270 posts)
16. For some reason . . .
The Republicans fast-tracked the bill, using a suspension of rules procedure that required a two-thirds supermajority to pass PRENDA (or, if you're a cynical person, PRETENDA). So, even though the vote was 248-165 in favor, it was way short of the votes needed for passage on to the Senate, where it would have died anyway.
So, why did the Republicans do it? Well, it beats working for one. It gives every Republican Representative a chance to go back home and whine to their constituents about how much they loooooove little pre-born babies, but the eeeeeevil Democrats just hate, Hate, HATE them. Knowing their supporters, these assholes know their know-nothing voters will lap it up. Just nobody mention all those jobs Boehner was harping about back in 2010, okay? |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 04:19 PM
rocktivity (44,427 posts)
10. Whew. That means that Planned Parenthood sting didn't work
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:06 PM
rebecca_herman (617 posts)
12. And did this proposed bill mention how it would be enforced?
There is no practical way to enforce it. A ban on disclosing gender would never pass at this point, it would be too unpopular since almost all pregnant women really want to know the gender. You could ask every woman why she is having the abortion, but she could just as easily say that she can't afford it, doesn't want kids yet or at all, has too many kids already, etc.
|
Response to rebecca_herman (Reply #12)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 05:44 AM
JustABozoOnThisBus (22,914 posts)
13. Truth serum, waterboarding ...
we have ways ...
|
Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #13)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 07:33 AM
cstanleytech (25,007 posts)